First author [Ref.] | Year | n | Method of analysis | Sensitivity % | Specificity % | Accuracy % | Prevalence % | p-value |
Vansteenkiste 72 | 1998 | 690 | Complementary | 89 | 99 | 98 | 7 | 0.002 |
CT | 47 | 96 | 92 | |||||
Vansteenkiste 74 | 1998 | 493 | Complementary | 67 | 97 | 93 | 12 | 0.002 |
Fusion images | 67 | 97 | 93 | |||||
CT | 50 | 93 | 87 | |||||
Berlangieri 84 | 1999 | 201 | Independent | 80 | 97 | 95 | 10 | <0.05 |
CT | 65 | 90 | 87 | |||||
Steinert 78 | 1997 | 191 | Independent | 89 | 99 | 97 | 25 | 0.007 |
CT | 57 | 94 | 85 | |||||
Scott 81 | 1996 | 75 | Complementary | 100 | 98 | 99 | 13 | 0.04 |
CT | 60 | 94 | 85 | |||||
Sasaki 85 | 1996 | 71 | Independent | 76 | 98 | 93 | 24 | <0.05 |
CT | 65 | 87 | 82 | |||||
Patz 79 | 1995 | 62 | Independent | 83 | 82 | 82 | 37 | NR |
CT | 43 | 85 | 69 |
n: number of studied lymph node stations; Independent: interpretation of PET without CT; Complementary: interpretation with aid of CT; Fusion images: digital fusion of CT and PET images; prevalence: proportion of malignant lymph node stations in the total group of studied lymph node stations; p-value: significance of the difference in performance between CT and PET, usually examined with a McNemar test; NR: not reported.